GPL and proprietary driver code

GPL and proprietary driver code

[James Wilkinson]

Please let me know if this should be asked elsewhere - I wasn't sure what
the most appropriate forum would be for licensing questions...

I have plans to write a proprietary file system that can be mounted on top
of XFS, in order to track and process certain file system requests.  My
question here is, assuming that all source code for my file system driver is
original work and not based on existing GPLed code, is my driver required to
be open source?  I know that it would have to be if I was modifying the
Linux kernel or the XFS file system code, but I'm not planning to do any of
that.  However, I've heard some conservative opinions of the belief that
this new driver would still need to be open source.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer, or perhaps point me to an
authoritative source?  I've read up on the GPL license, and it is my opinion
that my source could be kept proprietary, but I'd like to get expert
opinions before continuing on.

Thanks!
James

Re: GPL and proprietary driver code

[Eli Carter]

James Wilkinson wrote:
> Please let me know if this should be asked elsewhere - I wasn't sure what
> the most appropriate forum would be for licensing questions...
[snip]
> Can anyone give me a definitive answer, or perhaps point me to an
> authoritative source?  I've read up on the GPL license, and it is my opinion
> that my source could be kept proprietary, but I'd like to get expert
> opinions before continuing on.

So talk to a lawyer...

Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter           \                  it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------

Re: GPL and proprietary driver code

[Erez Zadok]

In message <007501c23e19$5a2899f0$656afea9@nsisw.com>, James Wilkinson writes:
> Please let me know if this should be asked elsewhere - I wasn't sure what
> the most appropriate forum would be for licensing questions...
> 
> I have plans to write a proprietary file system that can be mounted on top
> of XFS, in order to track and process certain file system requests.  My

Regarding "mounted on top of," if you're planning to use stackable file
systems from my FiST work for Linux, that work has a unique copyright scheme
that follows the Bison license.

Caveat: IANAL.

Erez.

Re: GPL and proprietary driver code

[Paul Jimenez]

In a related question, it seems to me that any work done using 
the FUSE toolkit could likewise be kept proprietary, yes?

  --pj

On Wednesday, Aug 7, 2002, Erez Zadok writes:
>In message <007501c23e19$5a2899f0$656afea9@nsisw.com>, James Wilkinson writes:
>> Please let me know if this should be asked elsewhere - I wasn't sure what
>> the most appropriate forum would be for licensing questions...
>> 
>> I have plans to write a proprietary file system that can be mounted on top
>> of XFS, in order to track and process certain file system requests.  My
>
>Regarding "mounted on top of," if you're planning to use stackable file
>systems from my FiST work for Linux, that work has a unique copyright scheme
>that follows the Bison license.
>
>Caveat: IANAL.
>
>Erez.
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: GPL and proprietary driver code

[Bryan Henderson]

>I have plans to write a proprietary file system that can be mounted on top
>of XFS, in order to track and process certain file system requests.  My
>question here is, assuming that all source code for my file system driver
is
>original work and not based on existing GPLed code, is my driver required
to
>be open source?

>Can anyone give me a definitive answer, or perhaps point me to an
>authoritative source?

I'm afraid no one has a definitive answer.  The authoritative source you
need is a decided case from a court of law in your jurisdiction.  No court
of law has ever interpreted the GPL.  We're all still waiting.

Some (including, I believe, the authors of the GPL) believe that if you
insmod a Linux kernel module, that constitutes a "linking" as mentioned in
the GPL and the inserted module must be open source.  Other learned
analysts say no.  Linus says for his part, he doesn't consider inserting a
closed source module a violation of his license, but Linus is but one of
many licensors (copyright holders) of the Linux kernel.